Legal Research
Cases
R v Lane (No 13)

R v Lane (No 13)

Case [2010] NSWSC 1540 3 November 2010

Admissibility of Evidence

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Keli LANE [No 13] [2010] NSWSC 1540

HEARING DATE(S): 09/08/2010 - 13/12/2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
3 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J

CATCHWORDS: EVIDENCE - admissibility - lies as consciousness of guilt - directions to jury - elements in R v Heyde - alleged lies central to Crown case - perpetuation of lies - requirement of evidence establishing lies - possible circularity when acceptance of lies as consciousness of guilt taken as admission of guilt - danger that evidence demonstrating consciousness of guilt establishes guilt of accused - conduct pointing to guilty mind - unfair prejudice - limitation of evidence - perpetuation of a lie not available as separate evidence of guilt - right to silence - Crown not entitled to reverse onus of proof - directions to exclude or limit its use - need for restraint in presentation of Crown case.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 s 137

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
Quinlan v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 106
Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193
R v Zheng (1995) 83 A Crim R 572
R v ST (1997) 92 A Crim R 390 at 394
Mercer v R (1993) 67 A Crim R 91 at 98
R v Middleton [2001] Crim LR 251
R v Harron [1996] Crim LR 581 at 583
R v Laz (1998) 1 VR 453; R v Russo [2004] VSCA 206
R v Sirillas [2006] VSCA 234
R v Heyde (1990) 20 NSWLR 234
Zoneff v R (2000) 200 CLR 234
R v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 672
R v Sutton (1986) 5 NSWLR 697 at 701
R v Ray (2003) 57 NSWLR 616 at 632
R v Singh-Bal (1997) 92 A Crim R 397
Macpherson v R (1981) 147 CLR 512

TEXTS CITED: Wood, “Criminal Law Update: Court of Criminal Appeal” (1999) 4 Judicial Review 217 at page 238

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Keli LANE (Accused)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/256171

COUNSEL: M Tedeschi QC / H Baker (Crown)
K Chapple SC / S Sloane (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
K Laurie, Archbold Legal Solutions (Accused)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

WEDNESDAY 3 NOVEMBER 2010

2009/256171 REGINA v Keli LANE

JUDGMENT: On application to leave lies and conduct as consciousness of guilt

An overview

1 HIS HONOUR: In its opening to the jury, the Crown submitted that, in the period between approximately 1995 and 2004, the accused told a considerable number of lies concerning events surrounding the circumstances of the birth of three of her four children. A number of these lies, it was said, related to the circumstances surrounding the birth of her second child, Tegan. The Crown case is that Tegan was murdered by her mother very shortly after her birth. In particular, the Crown opening asserted the “perpetuation” by the accused of a version (or versions) she…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Lane (No 13)

Details

AGLC: R v Lane (No 13) [2010] NSWSC 1540
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1540
Decision Date: 3 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Crown's prosecution of the respondent, Lane, for various criminal offences. The Crown's case relied heavily on the assertion that Lane had lied to the police, and these alleged lies were central to the prosecution's argument. The High Court was tasked with determining the admissibility of evidence related to these alleged lies, specifically whether they could be admitted as evidence of consciousness of guilt and whether such evidence could be used to reverse the onus of proof on the respondent.

The primary legal issue was whether the evidence of the alleged lies could be admitted under the principles established in R v Heyde. The court needed to consider whether the perpetuation of these lies could be used as separate evidence of guilt, and if so, whether this constituted an unfair prejudice to the respondent. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether such evidence could establish guilt in itself, or if it merely pointed to a guilty mind, without constituting direct proof of guilt. The court also had to consider the respondent's right to silence and whether the Crown could reverse the onus of proof by presenting evidence of the alleged lies.

The court held that evidence of lies, when considered as consciousness of guilt, must not be used to directly establish the guilt of the accused. Such evidence, while it may point to a guilty mind, does not in itself establish guilt. The court emphasised the need for restraint in the presentation of the Crown's case, particularly when the admissibility of evidence of lies is in question. The court found that the perpetuation of a lie could not be used as separate evidence of guilt and that the Crown was not entitled to reverse the onus of proof. The court further directed that the jury should be appropriately instructed to exclude or limit the use of such evidence, to prevent any possible circularity where the acceptance of the lies as consciousness of guilt could be taken as an admission of guilt.

The court's final orders were that the evidence of the alleged lies could not be used as direct proof of the respondent's guilt. The trial judge was directed to provide specific instructions to the jury on the limited admissibility of such evidence, ensuring that it was not used in a manner that would unfairly prejudice the respondent or establish guilt without proper proof. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal process and protecting the rights of the accused.

Orders